Physics, and Neuroscience tell us exactly why.
And you’re just lying via egregious naked mysticism.
If you lack the intelligence and knowledge and moral honesty to know so, that is not a reason for you to claim you know more by lying about what you can’t testify to.
Liars all.
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-10 18:22:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656364171359842340
Reply addressees: @Scatolalia
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656362105262469123
HIERARCHY:
Neuroscience >
… Epistemology >
… … Decidability >
… … … Laws of Nature >
… … … … Natural Law >
… … … … … Economics >
… … … … … … Politics (Commons)
… … … … … … … Jurisprudence >
… … … … … … … … Group Strategy >
… … …. … … … … … … Comparative Civilization
… … …. … … … … … … … Evolutionary Consequences
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-09 22:19:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656061344959832065
THE CONVERSATION THE WORLD NEEDS 😉
Stephen Wolfram (@stephen_wolfram) is more sophisticated than he knows how to put into words, and the interviewers who try to help him can’t compensate for themselves and the audience. A similar problem is just as obvious during interviews with Joscha Bach (@Plinz).
I’d love to participate with the two of them moderated by either Lex Fridman (@lexfridman) or Curt Jaimungle (@TOEwithCurt). If for no other reason than to demonstrate to an interviewer how to conduct this category of interviews. And educating that interviewer would allow him to reach the audience and produce the resulting public good: understanding.
The other person of value is Jeff Hawkins. But, it’s hard to interview Jeff because he is too aggressively and impulsively trying to add precision to what he and others are saying instead of letting the audience gradually follow the breadcrumbs to bridge the gulf in their understanding.
Why? I work in what you’d consider epistemology of logic, language, economics, and law but what Wolfram and Bach would consider the spectrum of computational grammars.
And computational grammar (Doolittle), like computational linguistics, is the bridge that connects mathematics and computation (Wolfram) with artificial intelligence and philosophy (Bach).
And it’s easier to explain to the public as a hierarchy that’s consistent across every scale of the universe from the background to the ideas of human beings.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @tysonmaly @lexfridman @stephen_wolfram
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-09 19:59:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656026183769751554
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656016483053387776
I don’t make excuses. I just ‘science’ everything down to first principles, and describe it as physics of the physical world, or the equivalent of physics in the behavioral world: reciprocal economic terms, and the physics of the evolutionary word: consequences.
I don’t have a simplistic view of much of anything. What I have is a scientific understanding of nearly everything. Because operational logic, physics economics and evolution aren’t opinions. The problem I’ve faced is that writing all of that content is a vast project, but any casual perusal of any part of the work that is in draft form is as unassailable as geometry.
That isn’t to say that people don’t need ‘feels’, and myths, and religions, for cooperation and mindfulness, because they are largely unfit for the world as it is – but it does allow me to judge (that’s my job) true/false, possible/not, ethical/not, moral/not, right/wrong, good/bad, regardless of feels. 😉
No one really wants the truth except to stop some group of liars, cheaters, and thieves from lying cheating and stealing, while permitting themselves to continue lying, cheating, stealing. 😉
Reply addressees: @FernandoGLV1212 @ToddNQuick1
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-08 17:15:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655622585973972992
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655605917319086081
@DajaniRiad
1) We know the paradigm (first principles, causal hierarchy), logic, and grammar of the universe, including not only physics, but neurology, psychology, sociology, politics, and group evolutionary strategy.
2) We know the logic of decidability across all human cooperation and conflict at all scales.
3) It’s trivially simple once you grasp it, but just as Galileo, Darwin, and Menger gave us knowledge we didn’t like, and the Greeks and Romans Knowledge the middle east despised, and so does the knowledge of the science and logic of human behavior.
4) Why? Because it means suppression of the reproduction of the demonstrably unfit is necessary, and that necessity is impossible to overcome (soft eugenics), and that the systematic postwar suppression of research into and expression of human differences is equal to a fundamentalist revolution suppressing knowledge in prior ages.
🙁
Reply addressees: @SovereigntyKing @DajaniRiad @BrianRoemmele
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-06 18:59:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654923914626097153
WHAT’S WRONG W/ STUDIES OF BEHAVIOR COMBINED WITH SOCIAL MEDIA?
What’s wrong with behavioral science: the tendency to seek a single frame of reference (equality) denying the fact that while human variation in ability and expressed competence is genetic and developmental regardless of sex, human variation in valuation, bias, and particularly when regard to social and moral conflict originates in the opposites (the opposite of equality) created by sex differences in cognition, with feminine short term exclusive empathizing avoiding responsibility to obtain status versus masculine long term general systematizing to seek responsibility to obtain status.
Most conflict in social media, and the reason for its continued investment, is due to the expression of attention seeking (validation), virtue signaling(moral bias or ‘team’ membership) status-seeking (material), and altruistic punishment (defense of status, and moral bias).
Most signals of altruistic punishment (negativity) in social media are due to such media being the first time we can easily admix groups into moral conflict where normally we would separate in space, time, and socialization by bias and interest, and express less altruistic punishment over our differences in our moral valuation that’s determined by our cognitive sexual dimorphism.
One of the principles I teach is that describing emotional reactions or intentions appeals to moral bias (excuse making), where economic explanation of all human behavior results in a value neutral assessment of costs – which is what causes all emotional reactions, since all emotions are always and everywhere reducible to change in the state of demonstrated interests (resources of some kind that the individual or group depend upon).
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-06 17:29:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654901236632633346
WHAT’S WRONG W/ STUDIES OF BEHAVIOR COMBINED WITH SOCIAL MEDIA?
I view understand most studies in the soft (pseudo) sciences as perpetuating ‘what’s wrong’ with behavioral science: the tendency to seek a single frame of reference (equality) denying the fact that while human variation in ability and expressed competence is genetic and developmental regardless of sex, human variation in valuation, bias, and particularly when regard to social and moral conflict originates in the opposites (the opposite of equality) created by sex differences in cognition, with feminine short term exclusive empathizing avoiding responsibility to obtain status versus masculine long term general systematizing to seek responsibility to obtain status.
Most conflict in social media, and the reason for its continued investment, is due to the expression of attention seeking (validation), virtue signaling(moral bias or ‘team’ membership) status-seeking (material), and altruistic punishment (defense of status, and moral bias).
Most signals of altruistic punishment (negativity) in social media are due to such media being the first time we can easily admix groups into moral conflict where normally we would separate in space, time, and socialization by bias and interest, and express less altruistic punishment over our differences in our moral valuation that’s determined by our cognitive sexual dimorphism.
One of the principles I teach is that describing emotional reactions or intentions appeals to moral bias (excuse making), where economic explanation of all human behavior results in a value neutral assessment of costs – which is what causes all emotional reactions, since all emotions are always and everywhere reducible to change in the state of demonstrated interests (resources of some kind that the individual or group depend upon).
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-06 17:29:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654900252841844738
That has nothing to do with it. And I’m not stating that. And youi’rer lying by claiming I do. All I’m saying is that I work on the science of cooperation. Any culture can do it that chooses to. We just invented it.
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-05 19:35:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654570467091521536
Reply addressees: @antigg860413
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654568281016000512
WHY DO COGNITIVELY FEMININE PEOPLE ENGAGE IN GENETIC, BIOLOGICAL, COGNITIVE, AND SOCIAL SCIENCE DENIAL?
(it’s simple really)
Sex Differences in Prediction of short term experiential empathizing vs Long term conseqential systematizing
RESULTING IN
Feminine Empathizing Magical Wishful Thinking to Evade Responsibility For Conflcit Resolution
-vs-
Masculine Systematizing Practical Empirical Thinking To Take Responsibility for Conflict Resolution
AND
Ethnic differences in cognitive dimorphism by sex bias caused by variation in neotenic evolution combined with social and economic selection pressure by isolation whether geographic or cultural.
THERFORE
Feminine Jewish Empathic Irresponsible Magical Thinking vs
Masculine European Systemizing Responsible Empirical Thinking.
The masculine ‘right’ can imagine the mind of a feminine ‘left’, and but the feminine ‘left’ can’t imagine the mind of the masculine right.
Hence the specialization of the feminine left in harm/care and the weighing of the full spectrum moral factors by the masculine right.
As a conseqence the feminine left seek irresponsibilty through exporting and externalizing all social, economic, political, miltary, and group competitive costs to the masculine right – while claiming they are virtuous rather than evading responsibilty and the costs of responsibility.
The data is overwhelming in support of each of these statements.
This is why we must create scientific, legal and institutional systems to prevent externalization of the consequences of irresponsibility and magical thinking so we maycontinue the western tradition of pursuing individual soverignty by the eradication of authority – meaning the maximization of responsibility of every individual prior to any participation or ‘say’ in the responsibile governance of the polity.
What this means? “Don’t take women (feminine minds) seriously in matters of social, economic, political, and strategic questions becaue they are effectively and conveniently the equivalent of face blind, color blind, tone deaf, and naive to any scale phenomena that requires systematizing and valuation of outcomes over time.
The preware behavioral science of freud, boaz, marx, is all pseudoscience, that has failed every test. The postwar revolt against the darwinian-spencer eugenic movement by mass production of pseudoscience (almost, but not exclusively by jewish authors) using the feminine marxist myth of oppression (vs domestication into responsibilty) is equivalent to the mass production of abrahamic religion by the same means in response the the greek and roman conquest and it’s reliance on reason and empiricism.
Female > jewish > abrahamic > marxist-pomo-woke fraudulent dysgenic devolution
Is the antithesis of:
Male > european > aristotelian > greco-roman-germanic-anglo empirical eugenic evolution that has dragged mankind kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, starvation, disease, suffering, early death and the victimization of a nature all but hostile to our existence.
Probably over most heads, but this is the ‘science’ underlying everything political.
Why?
Because while genetics largely determine variation in human competency, sex differences in cognition determine all variation in human biases.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
Reply addressees: @michaelshermer
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-05 13:33:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654479444076109824
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654107794306629632
Aristotle, Galileo, and Darwin were fringe 😉
General rule of acceptance of a theory:
The ratio between:
(a) the opportunity generated by it
vs
(b) the adaptive costs of it.
Humans avoid all adaptive costs, physical, emotional, cognitive. Ergo enumerate opportunities vs…
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-04 19:38:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654208944414285824
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654198369059762177